On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > The annotations are not quite right (though, to be fair, my judgement in > CFJ 2981 was also insufficiently clear). Rule 2140 (c) doesn't talk > about modifying an instrument, it talks about modifying an aspect of an > instrument; and the idea behind CFJ 2981 was that you can't modify > something that doesn't yet exist. (Rule 2140 now says "set or modify", > but "set" was added after CFJ 2981.)
Grat: Erm, you're right, but that applies to both cases. In 2945, G. said "more generally it's worth stating as a precedent that removing a property from an entity does in fact count as a "change" of the property for that entity".
